Nuclear physicists have found that the proton's building blocks, the quarks, are subjected to a pressure of 100 decillion Pascal (1035) near the center of a proton, which is about 10 times greater than the pressure in the heart of a neutron star. Credit: DOE's Jefferson Lab

Inside every proton in every atom in the universe is a pressure cooker environment that surpasses the atom-crushing heart of a neutron star. That's according to the first measurement of a mechanical property of subatomic particles, the pressure distribution inside the proton, which was carried out by scientists at the Department of Energy's Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility.

The nuclear physicists found that the proton's building blocks, the quarks, are subjected to a pressure of 100 decillion Pascal (1035) near the center of a proton, which is about 10 times greater than the pressure in the heart of a neutron star. The result was recently published in the journal Nature.

"We found an extremely high outward-directed pressure from the center of the proton, and a much lower and more extended inward-directed pressure near the proton's periphery," explains Volker Burkert, Jefferson Lab Hall B Leader and a co-author on the paper.

Burkert says that the distribution of pressure inside the proton is dictated by the strong force, the force that binds three quarks together to make a proton.

"Our results also shed light on the distribution of the strong force inside the proton," he said. "We are providing a way of visualizing the magnitude and distribution of the strong force inside the proton. This opens up an entirely new direction in nuclear and particle physics that can be explored in the future."

Once thought impossible to obtain, this measurement is the result of a clever pairing of two theoretical frameworks with existing data.

First, there are the generalized parton distributions. GPDs allow researchers to produce a 3-D image of the proton's structure as probed by the electromagnetic force. The second are the gravitational form factors of the proton. These form factors describe what the mechanical structure of the proton would be if researchers could probe the proton via the gravitational force.

The theorist who developed the concept of gravitational form factors in 1966, Heinz Pagels, famously observed in the paper detailing them that there was "very little hope of learning anything about the detailed mechanical structure of a particle, because of the extreme weakness of the gravitational interaction."

Recent theoretical work, however, has connected GPDs to the gravitational form factors, allowing the results from electromagnetic probes of protons to substitute for gravitational probes.

"This is the beauty of it. You have this map that you think you will never get," said Latifa Elouadrhiri, a Jefferson Lab staff scientist and co-author on the paper. "But here we are, filling it in with this electromagnetic probe."

The electromagnetic probe consists of beams of electrons produced by the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility, a DOE Office of Science User Facility. These electrons are directed into the nuclei of atoms, where they interact electromagnetically with the quarks inside protons via a process called deeply virtual Compton scattering.

In the DVCS process, an electron enters a proton and exchanges a virtual photon with a quark, transferring energy to the quark and proton. A short time later, the proton releases this energy by emitting another photon and continues on intact. This process is analogous to the calculations Pagels performed for how it would be possible to probe the proton gravitationally via a hypothetical beam of gravitons. The Jefferson Lab researchers were able to exploit a similarity between the well-known electromagnetic and hypothetical gravitational studies to get their result.

"There's a photon coming in and a photon coming out. And the pair of photons both are spin-1. That gives us the same information as exchanging one graviton particle with spin-2," says Francois-Xavier Girod, a Jefferson Lab staff scientist and co-author on the paper. "So now, one can basically do the same thing that we have done in electromagnetic processes—but relative to the gravitational form factors, which represent the mechanical structure of the proton."

The researchers say the next step is to apply the technique to even more precise data that will be available soon to reduce the uncertainties in the current analysis and begin working toward revealing other mechanical properties of the ubiquitous proton, such as the internal shear forces and the proton's mechanical radius.

This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no
part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

It's why we seemingly cannot defeat the speed of light, while we are told that time does not exist, yet we have spooky action at a distance and tons of literature shows how we can defeat time and space via non scientific methodologies (but they're logical and as rigorous as any 'science'.)

At the same time Quantum and Newtonian experimentation proves ---- that all points are true.

Like Elon Musk surmised through much thinking... and thousands of other deep thinkers who came before--that this is not a base reality.

Human perception does not bring all realities to you, the mind in development, is required for the rest of the puzzle.

The electron flow to the proton is a chain of electron positron electron positron in a continuous flow , electrons would repell each other magnetically without a positron in between the flow and not flow together, the positron is one third smaller in quantum mass charge magnetically bonded to the electrons in the flow chain hitting the target, they are magnetically bonding to the surface of the proton and the protron is ejecting the stream into a photon by a chain of positron+electron+position+electron+positron producing the photon by constructing those particles into a magnetic even quantum charge wave particle construction, where the even like opposite quantum mass charge offsets the mass 2 electrons2×.9999 negative, plus 3 positrons 3×.6666 positive together manufacture tge photon off the protons surface.

It's why we seemingly cannot defeat the speed of light, while we are told that time does not exist, yet we have spooky action at a distance and tons of literature shows how we can defeat time and space via non scientific methodologies

1) No one says time doesn't exist.2) Spooky action does not defeat the speed of light. c is not just the speed of light but much more importantly the speed of *information* ....which just also happens to be the speed of light because massless particles (like - but not excluisvely - light) can carry information. Light is not that which defines c in this universe. Light is just the first thing we measured in that regard (that's why we called it "speed of light" instead of "speed of information")

Spooky action does not convey information (and hence cannot be used to send a message or teleport stuff or whatever SciFi thing you're thinking of). Therefore it is not bound by the speed of information.

"The nuclear physicists found that the proton's building blocks, the quarks, are subjected to a pressure of 100 decillion Pascal (1035) near the centre of a proton, which is about 10 times greater than the pressure in the heart of a neutron star"

If this is so, 10x the pressure than a neutron star. As no one doubts these research results, extrapolating them into the protons in the neutron star, this means there is no need for neutrons as the quarks provide sufficient force to maintain the protons against the force of gravity.

Further research on electrons will reveal they also have a pressure of in the region of100 decillion Pascal.

A neutron theoretically does not exist as it is a proton which is a quark

Da Schneib> The neutron turns into a proton because of the quark decay, and the quark decay makes a W- particle which then decays into an electron and an electron antineutrino

Looking at the proton in its process of alternating positive and negative quarks, a proton is so described when its quarks are a positive charge and called a neutron when is quarks are a neutral charge. It is still a proton!Helium with is four nucleons two positive and two neutral, when the neutrons quarks decay as they are the same quarks as in the proton, if the quarks are decaying in the neutron they are equally decaying in the proton because the proton and the neutron are one and the same and now with the latest news on the internal pressure of the quark demonstrates the quarks supremacy over gravity.

I said way back when I was interested in the perceived reality of existential neutrons!I am still interested!

interesting! More SCIENTIFIC Obfuscation, this time in the standard model of Neutron degeneracy

@Benni: You are making wrong things up with full intent, are you? You are not simply wrong, you do it on purpose, is it so? Instead of taking in an antineutrino, it could emit a neutrino. Benni> .......making it clear just how little you know about Nuclear Physics & what must occur if the process is reversed.

Obfuscation is becoming a wide spread philosophy in crafting theory's, quasi neutral plasma is one, now neutron degeneracy. You appear to have a valid point here Benni

It's called commenting in the loop, you have to read all the comments, which if were keeping up with them you would be reading them in real time. As I said, it's called "commenting in the loop" it's my way of describing when one is in the loop and is in the circle and instinctively knows what is coming next and knows how to respond!

I am apparently not making sense to you, because you were not there and the only way you can get a sense of the human dynamics andyf, is to read all the comments.

If God was the number 10' some would say that 5+5=10. Then somone would say, you're wrong, 6+4=10. Then you would hear, ... Lol, you're both wrong, 7+3=10 and I can prove it. The number of equations are infinite when you get into fractions. The same in science. To my understanding there is no one answer. Everything works like a program and there are infinite things that work togather. God was the first scientist and the universe and life was his project. Thank God he got it all right on the first try. Day by day science is getting closer and closer to proving the existance of God. Ask yourself this question? How did the writers of the Bible know what to write 3500-2000 years ago? God was the only one that knew what happened Back then. If you look up the definitions to every major Hebrew and Greek word, you will find a modern day story of the creation in three different books of the Bible. The first chapter of Genesis, Proverbs 8:22-31, and John 1:1-5. God is also love and the right way

To get an idea of what happened throughout eternity, I have my understanding recorded in a 200 word FREE book called the Seed of the Universe. It's posted on my Google Profile for anyone who is interested. I have 30 years in the writing so I have explored both the Bible and science with a large percentage of my spare time. I have read a ton of scientific theories and listened to a thousand interruptations of the Bible, but so far, this is the only one where everything fits. It fits with the discoveries of science as well as the scriptures of the Bible. It also contains 150 illustrations and explinations that will walk you step by step through the Creation. ... Enjoy

Feeding the trolls may be entertaining but ignore works very well. I always have to be careful of course to only ignore the real cranks instead of just people I disagree with... but having said that you are having a remarkably one sided conversation with a lot of people on my ignore list.

Heinz Pagels' Perfect Symmetry was one of my favorite science books when I was in my teens. The section on Kaluza-Klein theory remains one of the best treatments in popular science books that I have seen. Pagels was unfortunately killed in a skiing accident in 1988. I would have liked to see what he made of string physics.

The parton model was substantially abandoned after the confirmation of QCD in 1979 by the first direct detections of gluons since instead of one constituent, the parton, physicists instead found six quarks and eight colored gluons. As this model is more detailed, the earlier model was discarded, but as can be seen it still remains true and has now yielded results from one of its predictions.

I'm still having a bit of a time with the large outward pressure in the center and the much lesser inward pressure on the outside... I mean, obviously a symmetry going on here, but....Is this a set up for proton fission?

I'm still having a bit of a time with the large outward pressure in the center and the much lesser inward pressure on the outside... I mean, obviously a symmetry going on here, but....Is this a set up for proton fission?

I'd hate to be on the planet that decides to test a proton fission weapon.

I'm still having a bit of a time with the large outward pressure in the center and the much lesser inward pressure on the outside... I mean, obviously a symmetry going on here, but....Is this a set up for proton fission?

I'd hate to be on the planet that decides to test a proton fission weapon.

You guys beat me to it but I have to admit I've been waiting for something like this to happen. I think we all know that it has previously been described that the gluon binds the quarks together (well, basically in my layman terminology). Since the proton has a calculated decay of something like 10^30 years I reasoned that there must a hell of lot energy stored up there keeping it all in balance. Maybe I'm being over simplistic (others here will correct my lack of knowledge) but again, in my layman's terms, like E = mc^2 all over again...or is it the reverse...'already halfway there' to making a BH? If we've thought about it, who else has?

I'm still having a bit of a time with the large outward pressure in the center and the much lesser inward pressure on the outside... I mean, obviously a symmetry going on here, but....Is this a set up for proton fission?

Surface area of a sphere increases as the square of the radius: A = 4πr²But volume increases as the cube of the radius:V = 4/3πr²So the pressure from the interior gets overwhelmed by the pressure from the surface; remember that the pressure from the surface keeps increasing while the pressure from the interior is from a limited number of partons.

I think we all know that it has previously been described that the gluon binds the quarks together (well, basically in my layman terminology).

There are eight colored gluons to bind the quarks with three different color charges. The color charges are attractive to one another and to their anticharges, only a color repels its same color as with electricity. So, for example, red attracts green, blue, antigreen, antiblue, and antired. It only repels red. The gluons mediate these interactions; only eight are needed since a color repels itself, just as only one EM gluon (the photon) is required for the EM force to repel like charges and attract unlikes.

Nucleons exchange quarks and colored gluons and as a result experience attractive color forces orders of magnitude stronger than the EM forces that push the protons in the nucleus apart. These can only happen in the presence of neutrons which stabilize the interactions. [contd]

Since the proton has a calculated decay of something like 10^30 years I reasoned that there must a hell of lot energy stored up

Sure, but you have to look at it this way: To decay the repulsion must overcome the attraction. While the attraction force overwhelms the repulsion force it isn't a done deal, because the exchange of forces isn't fixed but has an uncertainty associated with it (as basically anything does). So there is a tiiiny probability that at any point the repulsion overcomes the attraction. The probability is so tiny that this (may) happen with a half life of every 10^30 - 10^36 years or so (or not. The matter of whether the proton is unstable isn't settled science. Some theories demand it, others do not.)

The products (a positron and a pion which immediately pops into two gammas) do not lend themselves to initiating a chain reaction.

Since the proton has a calculated decay of something like 10^30 years I reasoned that there must a hell of lot energy stored up

Sure, but you have to look at it this way:... others do not.)

The products (a positron and a pion which immediately pops into two gammas) do not lend themselves to initiating a chain reaction.

Yes, but I think I mentioned it way back that if electron-positron decay/production involves γ and that e- & e+ are elementary particles could, and I ask 'could', elementary particles consist of γ bound in some/by some 'rule' as yet not known? As the researchers used EM force as a probe are we seeing something of compatible symmetry? (this term rather out of context, I know)

ementary particles consist of γ bound in some/by some 'rule' as yet not known?

No, because gammas have no charge while electrons/positrons do. Also gammas can't orbit that way. For that these masses would have to be black holes and *that* would definitely produce effects completely different from how matter behaves.

Parsec> Ignore works very well. I always have to be careful of course to only ignore the real cranks instead of just people I disagree with... but having said that you are having a remarkably one sided conversation

I agree Parsec, It is irritating when a commentator persistently poses trolling comments trying to lead you into pointless discussions that leads round in circles achieving nothing at all when they have their trolling questions answered. The onus is on the recipient of the answer to understand the answer!

ementary particles consist of γ bound in some/by some 'rule' as yet not known?

No, because gammas have no charge while electrons/positrons do. Also gammas can't orbit that way. For that these masses would have to be black holes and *that* would definitely produce effects completely different from how matter behaves.

(Who is down voting you? isn't me.)Yes, I understand what you say and it sounds reasonable. However, if e+ & e- are truly elementary then what elementary energy are e- & e+ composed of if only γ is observed? Is it the case that only γ are observed? Perhaps not and I am mistaken. (Ha, don't rush to reply as I'm going offline soon. But I look forward to continuing the discussion)

Feeding the trolls may be entertaining but ignore works very well. I always have to be careful of course to only ignore the real cranks instead of just people I disagree with... but having said that you are having a remarkably one sided conversation with a lot of people on my ignore list.

Point taken, Parsec. That one is now the first entry on my ignore list.

ementary particles consist of γ bound in some/by some 'rule' as yet not known?

No, because gammas have no charge while electrons/positrons do. Also gammas can't orbit that way. For that these masses would have to be black holes and *that* would definitely produce effects completely different from how matter behaves.

There isn't any force that causes photons (γ) to attract or repel one another, thus there is no way for them to associate into particles like electrons (e+/-). Photons do not have color, weak, or EM charges. As such they only respond to gravity, or direct interactions with matter particles (most notably electrons confined in an orbital around an atom). [contd]

[contd]The above is not completely true; gamma rays can have pair production in a magnetic field, but this is a self-interaction, not the interaction of two gammas. Two-photon interactions are known to be what extremely rarely happens when two gammas happen to have produced a particle pair in the same place at the same time, and some of the two particles from each self-interaction then interact before they annihilate back into the original gammas. This is sufficiently rare compared to the bath of photons seen in most places at most times that it has little or no effect on quantum electrodynamics, certainly not enough effect to account for the enormous number of electrons.

No one has ever seen electron decay, and no one has ever seen proton decay either. The latter would either require up quarks (the lightest quarks) to decay, or the lone down quark in a proton to decay, again which no one has ever seen. [contd]

[contd]Incidentally, @anti, I'm not quite clear on the full decay scenario where you get a positron and a pion from proton decay. Obviously it's a neutral pion and the charge is carried away by the positron, but I see several problems starting with where does the 1/3 or 2/3 electric charge that combines with the quark that turns into an electron come from, and moving right along what happens to conservation of lepton number? I think there may be more possible decay paths, since logically either the down or one of the ups can undergo decay with (most likely) different results depending on which branch the decay follows.

[contd]My sense of the subject of proton decay is that it takes two things, not just one, and that's why we don't detect it. Like, for example, a gamma with sufficient energy to produce a non-virtual particle pair, leptons or quarks, resulting in a lepton-antilepton pair (like e+ and e-) or a meson (like a pion, a quark-antiquark pair). The second thing in this case is a magnetic field without which the photon will just keep cruising along without ever producing a non-virtual particle pair.

And wrapping back around, @Mimath, that's why electrons can't be composed of photons. Another of those things we never see is violation of electric charge conservation (or as far as we can tell violation of weak or color charge conservation, either, for that matter).

...if e+ & e- are truly elementary then what elementary energy are e- & e+ composed of if only γ is observed?

I don't quite understand what you're asking here. e- and e+ are observed as well as γ; why do you say only γ [are] observed? e- and e+ don't seem to go away, they just get absorbed or incorporated by ions. And if γ make e- and e+ then where does the electric charge (which γ prominently obviously do not have) come from?

These are simple accounting facts that have to be answered for any conjecture to become a hypothesis. I'm dunning @anti on proton decay on the same basis so don't feel singled out.

Suggest you ignore this; it's butthurt trolls who got downvoted for saying stupid stuff and are taking "revenge" for their conspiracy theory that the sciensetis hate and fear them and are downvoting them.

@Da Schneib Yes, all understood but not quite sure of myself here I'm probably leaning say, 70% with what you say but the other 30% is a nagging question. The proton having a + charge being composed of Q & Gl but the e- is elementary. So what kind of 'structure' (not sure if that's the right word) would be elementary but produce a charge? I read on a Munich science page that scientist had succeeded in refracting γ through a silicon prism. Okay, this is not a quantum realm but do think it's possible that in e- there is an analogous mechanism whereby the elementary property is refracted or bent? Could the 'flow' of space-time produce such an effect? The reason I ask this is because of the thought experiments which consider retrocausality in e+ & e- diagrams. That is e- rotates in S-T which e+ rotates conversely?

@Da Schneib ... Could the 'flow' of space-time produce such an effect? The reason I ask this is because of the thought experiments which consider retrocausality in e+ & e- diagrams. That is e- rotates in S-T which e+ rotates conversely?

NOW we're talkin'... this provides the necessary symmetry...BTW - how do you make that little "y" symbol?

@Mimath, The proton's +1 charge is from the +2/3 charge on each up plus the -1/3 charge on the down. This yields 4/3 - 1/3 = 3/3 = 1. You can look up "up quark" and "down quark" on Wikipedia to verify this. The quarks are elementary particles, and the electron is an elementary particle also.

Elementary particles are called that because they have no constituents. No one knows in the cases of fermions why their charges have the values they do. This is one of the things string physics attempts to explain.

The stuff about refracting photons and so forth doesn't seem to connect well with your other thoughts. Why do you think it's relevant?

Electrons can be refracted. They just require different materials to accomplish the refraction. I think you're confusing some basic concepts but can't follow you well enough to understand what they might be.

@Mimath, The proton's +1 charge is from... The quarks are elementary particles, and the electron is an elementary particle also. Elementary particles are called that because they have no constituents... The stuff about refracting photons and so forth doesn't seem to connect well with your other thoughts. Why do you think it's relevant? Electrons can be refracted...

Thanks for the reply. Yes am well aware of proton structure as it were and the resultant charge which is why I mentioned it. Proton charge via Q's as it were. And as I mentioned also, e- is also an elementary particle so where does the charge come from? If say, charge is a measure of interaction in a broad sense (have read about this a couple of years ago), the proton has charge via quark interaction. But with the electron charge,e- being elementary, cannot be accounted in the same way as p+. Is the e- just pure energy? Does that pure energy gain charge with by interaction with space-time? cont.

cont. If as a result of collisions e-/γ/e+ pair production then perhaps my error is thinking that γ comes from the e- when reallyγ could be the due applied energy for the collision so perhaps you and I can ignore that about γ.However, I'm still left with the question, where does the electron charge come from?

Elementary particles can carry more than one charge. Quarks have electric charge, color charge, spin, mass, weak isospin, and weak hypercharge. If anything happens to a quark all of these things have to be conserved. Well, more or less. Some of them can be converted and not all of them are strictly conservative.

Protons are composite, not elementary, so they have these charges, or aggregates of them among their constituents. It's easy to lose track of the fact that a proton is actually a pretty complex little beastie compared to real elementary particles.

It's not in any way surprising to find that there are many charges to be accounted for in all baryons, not just hadrons. The more complex mesons are equally challenging.

As for where charges come from, so far no one knows for sure and not many have ideas for it. For the last century we've been treating them mostly as intrinsic and measured without asking that question. [contd]

[contd]An exception to that would be string physics. In string physics the particular Calabi-Yau space within which the strings (which actually are of higher order than simple one-dimensional entities) assume various states (generally dynamic) within the various dimensions and based on which dimensions they act in and to what extent, they exhibit charges. What particles there are and what charges they have are then a consequence both of the Calabi-Yau geometry, and what vibration modes are stable in that particular geometry and therefore what vibration modes conservative particles can exhibit.

Time dilation being the only empirically evidenced phenomenon that fits the experimental results ?ZeroT giving particle persistence , Negative and Positive for the inverted forces derived from the same repulsion force ?

[contd]An exception to that would be string physics... But a lot of people think string physics is BS.

Thanks again for the reply. As a layman, I agree, that SST has some intriguing ideas (such as vibrations determine this & that) but from what I understand it has its own problems. So for the moment we are stuck with the standard model...I don't mean that disparagingly because it seems to predict results pretty well.As far as charge is concerned yep, I agree with you. In the past few years I've read extracts (like Photon99) which is supposed to be about photon structure experiments. But of course while photons may give particles pairs it really doesn't say much about how such particles end up with charge. I would like to put my own idea into mathematical form so I could ask 'what about blah blah blah...' But I ain't that knowledgeable a layman (only basic formulations) so I'll have to wait until someone else can, Ha! Thanks for the chat anyway.

Pressure is equivalent to (within 50%) of the point of collapse of a neutron star into a Black Hole (BH). As other scientists (eg: Ashoke Sen) have suggested, & every fundamental quantized particle is a "Black Hole" (ie: the Quarks). What gravity does, electromagnetism does more easily. Recent experimental observations in Condensed Matter theory suggest the conjecture ER=EPR is true & the quarks are the sources & destinations of vestigial entanglement wormholes connecting other entangled places together. Certainly range limited tunneling phenomena in isotopically pure superfluids does occur. Large "Cosmic" BHs are simply the result of accretion of tiny fundamental (single quanta) "bubbles" of the most fundamental kind of spacetime "puncture" & reconnection. BH "Echoes" resulting from the merging of massive objects show 4.3 sigma evidence suggesting that current "BH" Theory is wrong. Speculation: The BH is a transition zone from Minkowski Flatspace to the orthogonal space of Wormholes.

Very neat result, coming so close to the balancing pressure of a neutron star core before it yield to the stresses to collapse into a black hole, and of course testing a lot of theory - strong force, gravity, stellar physics - at once!

Oy, the amount of phsyics and religious [!] trolls is pitiful, nice that downvoting now works tolabel them.

Speaking of which:

Parsec> Ignore works very well. I always have to be careful of course to only ignore the real cranks instead of just people I disagree with... but having said that you are having a remarkably one sided conversation

I agree Parsec, It is irritating when a commentator persistently poses trolling comments trying to lead you into pointless discussions that leads round in circles achieving nothing at all when they have their trolling questions answered. The onus is on the recipient of the answer to understand the answer!

I am pretty sure you are responding to a comment identifying you as a troll.

Also, you do not understand the social actions involved in thread dialog: both parties must strive to understand and make sense. If you do neither but just spout stream-of.thoughts, do not be surprised by a troll label.

Also, as dream experiments show, associative - or worse, dissociative - stream-of-thoughts make no sense, anymore than when religious trolls tries to insert magical 'gods' or pseudoscience trolls tries to insert electrical/ether universes that we know do not exist.

It is by engaging in observation and analysis of what actually exist in nature that these scientists have derived their (seemingly) excellent result.

So, expanding nucleus of atoms recycling expanding pushing force which have also nature of expanding electrons.If you have one expanding nuclei far away space, that nuclei dont have any electron outside. But if you go and put one expanding photon, which have right energy, moving that way where that nuclei is, there born new expanding electron when that photon interactive with that expanding pushing force which pushing out from expanding nuclei.

It is by engaging in observation and analysis of what actually exist in nature that these scientists have derived their (seemingly) excellent result.

You mean like accepting the OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE that ALL FREE NEUTRONS have a 15 minute decay rate? And that there is no observational evidence to the contrary except in the swoons of pop-cosmology's pseudoscience that a free unbound DEGENERATE NEUTRON exists that has a decay rate that extends into millions of years just so pop-cosmology can have the pipedream of neutron stars.

It's why we seemingly cannot defeat the speed of light, while we are told that time does not exist, yet we have spooky action at a distance and tons of literature shows how we can defeat time and space via non scientific methodologies (but they're logical and as rigorous as any 'science'.)

At the same time Quantum and Newtonian experimentation proves ---- that all points are true.

Like Elon Musk surmised through much thinking... and thousands of other deep thinkers who came before--that this is not a base reality.

Human perception does not bring all realities to you, the mind in development, is required for the rest of the puzzle.

You mean like accepting the OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE that ALL FREE NEUTRONS have a 15 minute decay rate? ... neutron stars.

Benni,I don't think anyone is really arguing the free neutron point. Gravity (and intense heat) is slowly using up the initial supply of atoms and protons to create new neutrons, as well as from the newly generated protons from the decay...

As a layman, I agree, that [string physics] has some intriguing ideas (such as vibrations determine this & that) but from what I understand it has its own problems.

@Mimath, you imply that there is some disproof of string physics. This is incorrect. It's completely consistent with all experimental and observational results. And it has vast explanatory power, as indicated by the fact it can account for charges, which the Standard Model cannot do. The SM takes the charges as axiomatic. In addition, and along a completely separate track, it explains gravity which the SM also cannot do. The SM deals only with SRT, not GRT. String physics also shows why renormalization works, and why color forces and charges are confined, which also are not explained by the SM. So tread lightly when you attempt to discredit string physics. No one has actually managed to do so.

You mean like accepting the OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE that ALL FREE NEUTRONS have a 15 minute decay rate? ... neutron stars.

Benni,I don't think anyone is really arguing the free neutron point. Gravity (and intense heat) is slowly using up the initial supply of atoms and protons to create new neutrons, as well as from the newly generated protons from the decay.

Until I brought it up 4 months ago, not a single one of you living here in the pop-cosmology Rant Brigade even knew a free neutron had a 15 minute decay period. And still, not a single one of you has taken up my challenge to prove you knew of such decay by putting up a Copy & Paste of a past post any of you made that you even knew of such a thing. Hey, WhyGuy, why? The answer is obvious, none of you know anything about nuclear physics, just pop-cosmology which is EASY requiring no education.

Then when I put up the challenge for OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE of a degenerate neutron, you all go wacko.

Da Schneib If my comment sounded like that implication then perhaps I need to re-word it. I actually like some ideas of SST but if I follow what some mainstream scientists say then it does have some problems of its own that need to be sorted. I don't underestimate SST in particular, with regard to unification but as a layman I need to take a balanced view of the SM and other alternatives.

The SM is an ad hoc structure of two particle physics theories, electrroweak and QCD, that describes everything we've seen with electronics and condensed matter physics, and high energy particle accelerators. Depending on whose count you like, it has anywhere from seventeen to over thirty free parameters. It certainly will never be a ToE, though everything it says must be in a ToE. It remains, however, the only HEP theory we have.

String physics isn't ad hoc. It's based on first principles of geometric space time physics like its progenitor GRT.

What we need is a great mathematical talent who chooses to investigate physics and develop one of the quantum gravity theories into something that predicts something we can measure. If we're lucky we'll get one this century; if not it might be another 500 years.

Also, @Mimath, a "balanced view" is incorrect. There isn't any "balanced view." There are ideas that explain more and ideas that explain less. The former are better than the latter, if neither violates observation and experiment.

One of the things I've never seen is an LQG explanation of charges other than gravity.

The ToE will not be a compromise between theories as you imply. It will be a single overwhelming synthesis that subsumes the pre-existing theories into itself, like relativity subsumes Newtonian TUG without denying it, or Dirac QED absorbs the Maxwell equations without denying them.

You mean like accepting the OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE that ALL FREE NEUTRONS have a 15 minute decay rate? ... neutron stars.

Benni,I don't think anyone is really arguing the free neutron point. Gravity (and intense heat) is slowly using up the initial supply of atoms and protons to create new neutrons, as well as from the newly generated protons from the decay.

Hey, WhyGuy, why? The answer is obvious, none of you know anything about nuclear physics, just pop-cosmology which is EASY requiring no education.

Also, @Mimath, a "balanced view" is incorrect. There isn't any "balanced view." There are ideas that explain more and ideas that explain less. The former are better than the latter, if neither violates observation and experiment.

One of the things I've never seen is an LQG explanation of charges other than gravity.

The ToE will not be a.

Unfortunately you take my comment out of context, again. I said 'as a layman...' I agree that a 'balanced view' might incorrect in the scientific community but I was referring to my own selection. For me to take a balanced view is such that I am as objective as I can be when reading the literature...and not neglecting my own limitations. And no one knows those better than me.

@Mimath, a balanced view is always wrong. Things come out this way, or they come out that way; they don't come out 50/50. I'm questioning your logical procedures, not your evidence. It has nothing to do with "the scientific community."

Again, you are out of context. Many people have 'balanced views' of this and that but if that upsets you so be it. I can read 'not even wrong' and 'warped passages' (hidden dimensions) and remain noncommittal. I too question you logical existential and realistic thinking and I conclude you have ulterior motive. If you favour ToE, fine, perhaps we can discuss the present article in that context.

Ummm, a ToE is a Theory of Everything. It's a physics theory that has very few or no assumptions- in short the minimum that we can come up with.

It doesn't upset me, it makes me sad that you're not willing to follow the evidence and think logically. It's your mind and you're responsible for its hygiene. I can't force you to think but it makes you much less interesting to talk to when you don't. And you haven't been lately.

You really shouldn't project your feelings onto others. Quite frankly I don't really care very much; I was kind of probing to see if you're turning into a crank after the UFO thing. It's starting to look that way.

And just to be sure we're keeping this honest, the SM is not a ToE. It can't explain the origin of charges and it doesn't include gravity. It does explain most everything else we've seen, but it also doesn't predict the particle masses (though it does explain them, that's why the Higgs was such a big deal that they built the LHC to find it).

When we were having the discussion on UFOs you made a bad mistake. I told you about some evidence I had personally debunked, making it clear I was aware of evidence presented for UFOs and instead of presenting some more, and credible evidence to offset the BS I saw before you got shirty. That's what cranks do. Now you're getting shirty again, and projecting feelings of "upset" on me. Having seen that a lot here and elsewhere it makes me extremely skeptical. It's usually the prelude to a bunch of denoucements of my personal characteristics and I thought you were better than that. I hope I haven't made a mistake.

@Da Schneib, yes how predictable of you and that was the 'I conclude you have ulterior motive' I mentioned. You are using another thread to attack me. How insecure you are. How I am turning into a crank? Because I've listened to you in the past? Where have I tried project my feelings on others? Example please. In the past I have asked and followed your advice (see above) but recently you have shown an inherent mode of inflexibility on realistic issues and by your use of expletives (which you can't help yourself in doing) done what you accuse me of...to force your idea onto me.If you are not going to discuss objectively and logically the present article then have the courage to say so and stop pretending with 'I'm brilliant and you're not' attitude.

actually, I once knew of one idiot that said just that i.e. that time doesn't exist, dismissing time as "just a series of events" (groan)I went to great length to explain why that is erroneous but he remained unconvinced.

If time is illusionary because it is nothing more than 'a series of events', how much time passes between one event and the very next one i.e. between 'adjacent' events?If no time, then the sum of a series of periods of time between adjacent events within a whole series of events must also be no time and we wouldn't experience even the illusion of time because there wouldn't be any time between one mental experience, which is itself an event, of an event and the next mental experience of an event.If some none zero finite period of time between adjacent events, what series of events defines the magnitude of that finite period of time? If a finite number of series of events, we are back to the same problem...

I kinda have a nose for 'em. You can usually spot 'em by their logical errors and their communication style.

It's a shame people get so cranked up on their obsessions that they make up wild conspiracy theories about the government and get nasty when you point out that they're wild conspiracy theories. Some people call that "cognitive dissonance."

actually, I once knew of one idiot that said just that i.e. that time doesn't exist, dismissing time as "just a series of events" (groan)I went to great length to explain why that is erroneous but he remained unconvinced.

If time is illusionary because it is nothing more than 'a series of events', how much time passes between one event and the very next one i.e. between 'adjacent' events?.

May I use your 'a series of events' as 'change' (from one state to another). It is an interesting point about the arrow of time moving forward. Perhaps some people wish to deny it simply because of it is used in movies and the like. Perhaps they feel obliged to accept 'time travel' if they accept the existence of time. But then again, I don't think it's difficult to understand why some feel that time might be better replaced by 'change' because that it was what we actually observe in everyday life. (cont)

Just so you know, @Mimath, it's not you being a UFO crank that bothers me. You can be a UFO crank if you want and we can talk about other things. It's you trying to stuff UFO crankery up my nose without any evidence and by sheer effrontery; unfortunately that seems to be what cranks always do.

(cont) We drive from one point to another so it's a change in position and edible fruit if left changes to inedible. Although having said that we also live by the calendar too. Then at the quantum extreme we have, say, something*^-44 seconds. While I find such figure difficult to visualize perhaps it is important when probing the proton (as in the article). That is to say, if time was replaced by change then inside the proton would necessary have to be changing too. Now while physics sites suggest that the quarks and gluons are constantly interacting but the overall product, the proton, remains stable. Would/is this a contradiction with reference 'time' & 'change' If probing and obtaining pressure info about the proton does that probe itself have a significant affect on the time/change within the proton? Just asking.

"There's a photon coming in and a photon coming out. And the pair of photons both are spin-1. That gives us the same information as exchanging one graviton particle with spin-2," says Francois-Xavier Girod, a Jefferson Lab staff scientist and co-author on the paper."

"There's a photon coming in and a photon coming out. And the pair of photons both are spin-1. That gives us the same information as exchanging one graviton particle with spin-2," says Francois-Xavier Girod, a Jefferson Lab staff scientist and co-author on the paper."

Is this suggesting a route to investigating the hypothetical graviton? Or suggestive of SST interpretation of massless strings? Hadn't thought of either...hmmm

@Da Schneib ... Could the 'flow' of space-time produce such an effect? The reason I ask this is because of the thought experiments which consider retrocausality in e+ & e- diagrams. That is e- rotates in S-T which e+ rotates conversely?

NOW we're talkin'... this provides the necessary symmetry...BTW - how do you make that little "y" symbol?

@Da Schneib ... Could the 'flow' of space-time produce such an effect? The reason I ask this is because of the thought experiments which consider retrocausality in e+ & e- diagrams. That is e- rotates in S-T which e+ rotates conversely?

NOW we're talkin'... this provides the necessary symmetry...BTW - how do you make that little "y" symbol?

Note

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose.
The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.

Your message

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox.
You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

Your Privacy

This site uses cookies to assist with navigation, analyse your use of our services, and provide content from third parties.
By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Privacy Policy
and Terms of Use.